TR EMERITUS

I saw an advertisement for digital subscription to the Straits Times at $9.90 per month. My immediate reaction was - at last. SPH has now got the right business model. At $9.90 per month, I am willing to subscribe to the online platform and read the local news. Previously, they offered a low subscription for 3 months and revert to a subscription of $60 or $90 a month. That is too high. I refused to subscribe to this kind of bait. There was a link to read the Terms and Conditions. It was a very, very long document. After reading a few pages, I gave up. I did not want to subscribe to onerous terms and conditions. SPH has, once again, turned me off. This seems to be a bad habit among Singapore managers. They really know how to turn off their customers with impractical, unnecessary and onerous requirements.   Tan Kin Lian      Read More →

I recently posted something about Donald Trump setting back the cause of White Supremacy because his mishandling of the Covid-19 outbreak in America showed people that White Males were not necessarily superior to women or people of colour. My post below: What was interesting was that I got an angry response from a friend of mine, who said that it was enough of my “Fake CNN Opinions.” I was intrigued by this comment because this line summed up the crux of his argument, which was “my opinion was fake,” because he or his position said it was. I was a little taken back because this friend of mine is an exceedingly successful corporate high flyer in the technology sphere and given his corporate position, I did expect him to use a more intelligent line of attack. However, in certain respects, this is part and parcel of living in a world that is highly polarized and thanks to the internet, people have so many sources of information to choose from that instead of looking towards the news agencies as a source of information, people look to the news as a source of confirmation of their own preexisting opinions. Thanks to Trump, America is the most extreme example of this. To be fair to Donald Trump, he wasn’t the first politician to exploit this difference, he is merely the most successful. If I look at my Facebook feed about stories on the second impeachment trial, I’ve noticed that for every article stating why Trump should have been convicted, there are plenty of other articles from people who think the impeachment trial was a plot by the evil Democrats who chose to target a well-meaning former president. America, is however, not the only example of this polarization of opinions and people who forget that disagreements are just that. Here in Singapore, one always needs to read a lot to find out the truth of any given event. As my former boss, PN Balji, former editor of the Today newspaper used to say, “According to the mainstream, government can do no wrong and according to the online media, the government can do no right – so the truth is probably somewhere in between.” Everyone is so busy fighting for their opinion to be regarded as the right one and thanks to the invention of the term “fake news,” it becomes very easy to label anything that you disagree with as “fake.” As my mother pointed out, most us gravitate to the news sources that we agree with. I am guilty of this in many respects. My views on the Middle East for example, are shaped by Haaretz, the Israeli paper which does not follow the Zionist view on things. I also check out Al Jazeera English’s website. For local Singapore news, I’m little bit limited, so I check out the Straits Times Forum, Today and TRemeritus. I avoid reading say, the Jerusalem Post, which an Israeli Diplomat I know, said was what the dumb people read. In our effort to get confirmation from the press, we forget that there are two sections of the news media. One is the “Opinion” section and then there’s the “News” section. We need to remember that there is a difference between opinions and news. Let’s start with the obvious. News is supposed to be report on what happened. For if there’ a flash flood, the fact remains that every newspaper reports it because the news is the flash flood. If a politician says something, reporters, regardless of political affiliation are obliged to report what was said. Let’s take the now infamous “covfefe” tweet. This was what the then US President tweeted and was reported by both Fox News and the Guardian. News happens regardless of our political affiliations. Does the flash flood in some part of the world care if I work for a “conservative” or “liberal” publication? No, it just happens. This is news. News and facts happen regardless of political affiliations of the media. It’s like being punched. Does it matter if the guy who punched you gave you a Chinese Kung-Fu punch or Western Boxing Punch? It’s a punch, you were punched. News reporters are obliged to have some objectivity. Opinions on the other hand are totally slanted, because well, they are supposed to be and there’s no obligation on the opinion provider to be objective. He or she should argue how a particular opinion was formed and it makes compelling reading if the opinion is based on some form of fact. However, I’ve known successful enough bloggers who write opinions because, well, that’s the way they feel and screw you if you disagree. The best example of a medium that understands this is, funnily enough Fox News. You have the team that gives you opinions with the likes of Sean Hannity and Laura Ingrahm. I find both pretty objectionable in the opinions they provide (though I do find Laura easy on the eye) but I got to respect that they are opinion providers rather than fact providers (though I do believe trreating Covid like a joke was irresponsible). Both Hannity and Ingrahm took the view that whatever Trump did was a blessing, which was their obligation as opinion providers. Yet, at the same time section of Fox News that covers the news, does so rather professionally. You have the likes of Chris Wallace who is known as a good objective journalist who has challenged political candidates that his network openly supports. Then there was the reporter who, when asked about the voter fraud allegations during the November Election said “That’s NOT true.” The difference between two sections of the same outlet shows that both sides do two different jobs. People like Wallace are paid to tell it as it is. People like Hannity on the other hand are paid for provoke a reaction. Sure, we’re not going to like everything we see or read, but the sooner we accept that there is a difference between news reports and opinion reports, the more likely we are to remember that we need to live together in some form of harmony.   Tang Li *Although I’ve been based mainly in Singapore for nearly two decades, I’ve had the privilege of being able meet people who have crossed borders and cultures. I’ve befriended ministers and ambassadors and worked on projects involving a former head of state. Yet, at the same time, I’ve had the privilege of befriending migrant labourers and former convicts. All of them have a story to tell. All of them add to the fabric of life. I hope to express the stories that inspire us to create life as it should be.      Read More →

When Temasek announces that Ho Ching will be retiring as its CEO last Tuesday, critics had a field day bombarding Temasek, and for good reason. Singapore already has a sovereign wealth fund “SWF” in our Government Investment Corporation “GIC” and Temasek was supposed to be just a holding company for our government assets, namely its equities in our GLCs, and public entities that were being privatized. It has since been actively making investment that is no difference from our GIC, resulting in tiny Singapore having two undifferentiated SWFs. Within the original Social Compact underpinning our Nation Building, Singaporeans were supportive of our government using our national saving during its early days as our reserve was low. The implicit understanding has been that Singaporeans will benefit from the success of Singapore and Nation Building was supposed to be a form of Dividend Play. Fast forward, public housing is no longer a dividend-yielding investment and our CPF is not growing at the rate of our SWFs while the government conveniently goes silent with the original social compact it has with its people. When the politically connected elites got to enjoy the Swiss standard of living, supplemented by probably the fattest pay-check of any politician in the world, it is clear that politics has divided Singapore needlessly, and for all the wrong reasons. It is unsustainable when the working class continues to struggle with the high cost of living and when unions become business owners, articulating the voice of the government instead of arbitrating the plights and rights of the working class. Comparative SWF – The Norwegian’s Model: Norway has probably the most transparent SWF in the world. It is similar to Singapore in term of population and yet, it has no need to conceal information by classifying them as “state secrets” to stay ahead of their competition. Like any SWF, Temasek has to provide third parties rating agencies with vital and sensitive information so that it can be risk-assessed, including those “state secrets”. As such, when Temasek persistently cited “state secrets” in not disclosing information to concerned Singaporeans, the suspicion can only gain credibility over time. Going forward, the Norwegian SWF has been actively ploughing back exceptional profit to augment the social safety net for its people, and that explains why Norwegians work exceptionally hard during their youth and are prepared to travel widely for the sake of their country. They probably have the Gold Standard for the best healthcare and retirement benefits in the world. This is an exemplary model of what true Nation Building should be all about, and it did not happen by chance. The Norwegians are both socially and politically active and their constant push on their government is to ensure that everyone, not just the working class, is working for the good of their country. It is indeed a bitter pill for many elderly Singaporeans who had stood by the country patriotically during their younger days to be hearing that Temasek’s portfolio has grown from S$90 billion to S$300 billion under the leadership of Ho Ching when the majority of their CPF saving had remain stagnant, barely struggling to stay capital-positive after adjusting for inflation. While the CEO-designate may be overly eager to give his former boss a glowing accolade, he has unwittingly throw salt on the wounds of the working class. In the age of information, concerned Singaporeans are no fools and when they look at the comparative similarities and benefits between the Norwegian’s models against ours, it does not take a genius to deduct that Singaporeans, especially the working class, has been short-changed by our politicians. But if the issue lies with the ruling politicians within our government, why are critics and concerned Singaporeans so angry with Temasek and Ho Ching? The national saving of the working class of Singapore is managed by the CPF Board, a statutory board under the Ministry of Manpower. If CPF Board had appointed an independent fund manager or a dedicated fund manager to manage our saving instead of lending them to the government or its SWFs at discounted rate, it is fair to state that our CPF saving would have grown by a much higher quantum than the rate offered by both the GIC and Temasek. That would also mean that the majority of the working class of Singapore would be able to retire rather comfortably, like the Swiss standard of living, without the need of the government to provide them any handouts to them. As such, by appointing Temasek instead of an independent or a dedicated fund manager to directly or indirectly manage our retirement fund, the perception is that the government had managed to profit from this arrangement, and credit is given to Temasek for helping to grow the country’s reserve (but at the expense of our CPF). It also means that the transfer of public entities to Temasek at low valuation has not benefit the citizens but has propped up the operformance of Temasek’s and our GLCs. Going forward, the billion dollar question has to be – why did Ho Ching choose to retire when our GLCs are in limbo? Logic dictates that she should walk away only when our GLCs are doing exceptionally well. Could it be that it will takes many more years for the Singapore economy to recover and that means that Temasek’s performance and those of our GLCs will be badly impacted for many years to come? Or could it be that the government’s commitment of S$100 billion to fight climate change is instrumental and will be used by our GLCs and related entities to work their way out of their miseries? If so, then it would be right for her to retire so as to avoid conflict of interest since her husband is the prime minister. Then again, if this is proven to be true, what will the government be providing for our working class, our entrepreneurs and SMEs to weather the current economic hardship in their upcoming Budget given the dreadful economic scenario at hand? It looks like Ho Ching has become an enigmatic figure, hard to interpret or understand, mysterious at time too. She is in the government and yet she is not. She is in control of the establishment and yet she is not. Question is, will her retirement be an end of this enigma? Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs – Self Actualization for Presidency: Given that Ho Ching was a high flyer, it is most unlikely that she will retire quietly into being an ordinary citizen. According to Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, a person of her status will most probably aspire towards self actualization. Given her social status and achievements, what public office is there left for her to consider? As the government has been actively tinkering with the criteria for the Elected Presidency, the number of qualifying candidate is already exceptionally low. If the tinkering continues and if she is left as the only candidate for the next presidential election, will Singaporeans give her a chance to become our Ninth President? If so, will she use this office to correct the wrongs and missteps of the PAP government and shows Singaporeans that she is no enigma but is equally patriotic and concerned as any one of us? I hope she still believe that Singaporeans deserve better…   Joseph Nathan      Read More →